Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Growth patterns of survivors of retinoblastoma treated with ophthalmic artery chemosurgery

  • Sruti S. Akella ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    sruti.akella@gmail.com

    Affiliation Transitional Year Intern, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Jasmine H. Francis ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Surgery, Ophthalmic Oncology Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America, Department of Ophthalmology, Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Andrea Knezevic ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Formal analysis, Software

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Irina Ostrovnaya ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Formal analysis, Software

    Affiliation Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Y. Pierre Gobin ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Investigation

    Affiliation Department of Radiology and Neurosurgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Danielle Friedman ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Edith Guarini ,

    Roles Investigation

    ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

    Affiliation Department of Surgery, Ophthalmic Oncology Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Lindsey Eibeler ,

    Roles Investigation

    ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

    Affiliation Department of Surgery, Ophthalmic Oncology Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Federica Catalanotti,

    Roles Investigation

    Affiliation Department of Surgery, Ophthalmic Oncology Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • David H. Abramson

    Contributed equally to this work with: Sruti S. Akella, Jasmine H. Francis, Andrea Knezevic, Irina Ostrovnaya, Y. Pierre Gobin, Danielle Friedman, David H. Abramson

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Surgery, Ophthalmic Oncology Service Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America, Department of Ophthalmology, Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America

Growth patterns of survivors of retinoblastoma treated with ophthalmic artery chemosurgery

  • Sruti S. Akella, 
  • Jasmine H. Francis, 
  • Andrea Knezevic, 
  • Irina Ostrovnaya, 
  • Y. Pierre Gobin, 
  • Danielle Friedman, 
  • Edith Guarini, 
  • Lindsey Eibeler, 
  • Federica Catalanotti, 
  • David H. Abramson
PLOS
x

Abstract

Although studies from pediatric cancers (largely acute lymphoblastic leukemia) have shown that patients undergoing systemic chemotherapy may experience decreased growth velocity during the treatment phase, no such data exist for retinoblastoma patients treated with systemic chemotherapy or ophthalmic artery chemosurgery (OAC). The purpose of this study is to report growth patterns of our retinoblastoma (Rb) population who were treated with OAC in a retrospective, single center (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) review of 341 patients treated between 2006 and 2016. Children who only received OAC were classified as naive; those who were treated initially with systemic chemotherapy and subsequently presented to our center for OAC were termed secondary; and a small group of patients who received single-agent systemic chemotherapy prior to OAC were labeled bridge. For all patients, height and weight were recorded at monthly intervals during OAC (short-term) and then annually during a follow-up period (long-term) up to 3 years after treatment. Excluded from this study were children who received external radiation therapy and those with genetic syndromes, which are independently associated with growth derangements. During OAC, there was no significant difference in growth velocity between the naïve and secondary groups. In either group, number of treatments also did not affect growth rate. Three years after the end of OAC, naïve patients were in the 68th percentile by height (95% CI 61.30, 74.63) compared to secondary patients in the 61st percentile (95% CI 51.1, 71.47). Both groups were in the same weight percentiles during the first two years of follow-up but at the three-year follow-up period, naïve patients were in the 63rd percentile (95% CI 57.4, 69.4) and secondary patients were in the 60th percentile (95% CI 50.4, 69.7). OAC for retinoblastoma does not appear to impact short-term growth velocity, weight gain during the treatment period or after three years.

Introduction

Retinoblastoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in children, and recent therapeutic advances have made it one of the most curable forms of childhood cancer, with survival rates exceeding 95% in some countries [1]. The increasing number of survivors of childhood retinoblastoma has led to a growing interest in the long-term adverse effects of treatment.

The incidence of childhood cancers, including retinoblastoma, coincides with periods of rapid skeletal growth [2]. There are no data, however, to our knowledge, regarding the potential incidence of growth impairment in survivors of retinoblastoma treated with systemic chemotherapy or OAC, which may or may not impact height. Several studies [3,4,5] in the literature have reported long-term sequela of survivors of retinoblastoma but none have commented on growth patterns.

During the duration of systemic chemotherapy for other pediatric cancers, early growth deceleration with bone age retardation and focal radiological findings have previously been documented [6]. In patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia receiving systemic chemotherapy, decreased growth velocity has been reported during all phases of treatment [79]. However, nearly 70% of these patients will show a variable degree of catch-up growth depending on the type and dosage of the chemotherapy regimen administered [10]. Until the introduction of ophthalmic artery chemosurgery (OAC), systemic chemotherapy (usually with carboplatin, vincristine, and etoposide) was used for intraocular retinoblastoma [11,12] since the abandonment of external beam radiation. OAC uses approximately one-twentieth of the typical total systemic dose [12] and as a result has far fewer and less intense systemic side effects compared to intravenous administration [13,14]. The purpose of this study is to report growth patterns in a large cohort of retinoblastoma survivors who were treated using OAC.

Materials and methods

A retrospective survey of all patients treated with OAC between May 1, 2006, and October 1, 2016 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was performed. Excluded from the study were children with known genetic syndromes, including Down syndrome and 13q deletion and children who had received external beam radiation therapy, which are both independently associated with short stature. Patients were categorized in one of three groups: those who received OAC as the primary treatment (naive); those who received OAC after systemic therapy (secondary); and patients who received a round of single-agent systemic chemotherapy (bridge) prior to treatment with OAC.

For every child in each group, height and weight were obtained retrospectively at first office visit, at every subsequent OAC treatment (short-term), and annually at 1, 2 and 3 years post-chemotherapy (long-term), where data was available. Baseline was defined as measurements taken at first OAC treatment. Height was measured using a length board for infants and a scale-mounted stadiometer for older children. Additional details were recorded about tumor laterality and total cumulative doses of carboplatin, topotecan, and melphalan. A total of 341 patients with 372 OAC sessions were included. This study was approved by the institutional review board of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. All data were de-identified and analyzed anonymously.

Monthly height and weight measurements from the OAC treatment period were used to calculate growth velocities for each patient, which were compared between chemotherapy groups using the univariate ANOVA test. For long term growth analysis, height and weight percentiles were compared between groups at years 1, 2 and 3 after the start of treatment. Multivariate ANOVA models were adjusted for age, baseline measurement, and number of treatments as covariates in addition to chemotherapy group.

Height and weight percentiles were calculated for each child based on sex and age using World Health Organization (WHO) growth curves for ages up to 24 months and Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) growth curves for ages greater than 24 months.

Results

Demographics of our population are shown in Table 1. Naïve patients received treatment an average of two months younger than secondary patients (16 versus 18 months: p = 0.006), and at first treatment were shorter (p<0.001) and weighed less (p = 0.001). Bridge patients began treatment at age 5 months, and were predictably smaller than patients in other groups. Patients in all groups received a median number of three OAC treatments (p = 0.23).

thumbnail
Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics, overall and by chemotherapy group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197052.t001

Short-term growth analysis

During OAC, bridge patients grew fastest by height (1.80 centimeters per month; 95% CI 1.38, 2.22), followed by secondary patients (1.29 cm/month; 95% CI 1.11, 1.47) and finally naïve patients (Fig 1, Table 2). These group differences in linear growth velocity are significantly different in univariate analysis (ANOVA p = 0.02). However, in pairwise comparisons only the mean difference in linear growth velocity between bridge and naïve patients was significant (Table 2). Mean change in weight was not significantly different by group in univariate analysis (ANOVA p = 0.12) (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Growth velocity by height and weight during OAC.

Growth velocity for height (n = 255) and weight (n = 324) during treatment by chemotherapy group. Growth slope is calculated starting at first treatment and using height and weight measurements up to time of treatment number 4 (or last available measurement prior to treatment 4); slope is calculated for patients who have a measurement available at first treatment and at least one follow-up. Mean height growth is significantly different between groups (ANOVA p = 0.02) with the mean for the bridge group significantly higher than the mean for the naïve group (mean difference: 0.66 cm/month; 95% CI: 0.10, 1.21; p = 0.01). Mean weight growth is not significantly different by group (ANOVA p = 0.12).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197052.g001

When assessing independent predictors of growth outcomes in multivariate models, we found that type of chemotherapy is not an important predictor for growth velocity in height (p = 0.40) nor weight (p = 0.27) during the OAC treatment period (Table 2). Age at baseline is an important predictor of growth velocity in height (p<0.001) but not weight (p = 0.93). The total number of treatments received during OAC does not affect growth velocity in height (p = 0.31) nor weight (p = 0.18).

Three-year growth analysis

Annually in the three-year follow-up period, naïve patients were consistently in a higher height percentile than secondary patients, although no group differences were significantly different (Fig 2, Table 3). At two years of follow-up, naïve patients were in the 68th percentile on average, compared to the 63rd percentile for secondary patients (mean difference: 4.6 percentile points, 95% CI: -5.7, 14.9). No clear trend was seen when comparing weight percentiles. The proportion of patients who dropped more than 10 percentile points in height at 1, 2 and 3 years compared to baseline is higher in the secondary group compared to the naïve group (Table 4). At two years of follow-up, 13.0% of naïve patients had dropped more than 10 percentile points in height, compared to 21.7% in the secondary group. No clear trend was seen when comparing drop in weight percentile.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Height and weight percentiles at first treatment, 1, 2 and 3 year follow-up by chemotherapy group.

Mean height percentiles are not significantly different by group at first treatment (ANOVA p = 0.72, n = 291), 1 year (p = 0.14, n = 276), 2 year (p = 0.06, n = 203) and 3 year (p = 0.49, n = 134) follow-up. Mean weight percentiles are also not significantly different by group at first treatment (p = 0.86, n = 334), 1 year (p = 0.93, n = 290), 2 year (p = 0.65, n = 209) and 3 year (p = 0.73, n = 137) follow-up.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197052.g002

thumbnail
Table 4. Proportion of height and weight percentile drop >10% from baseline by group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197052.t004

Discussion

As the survival rates of retinoblastoma begin to exceed 95%, the late-effects of cancer treatment have obtained increased attention, and the long-term monitoring of survivors has become an important part of their overall health care. In addition, the understanding of long term side effects drives management. External beam irradiation was the only way advanced eyes were salvaged for most of the 20th century but, because of its impact on the development of secondary cancers, years later the technique has been abandoned worldwide [1].

Several studies have reported on psychological [15,16], behavioral [17,18], and functional outcomes [19,20] in adult survivors of retinoblastoma. While many papers report on second cancer incidence, patterns and outcomes for retinoblastoma patients, only a few [4,5,21] have reported long-term treatment-related medical conditions of retinoblastoma survivors. Suzuki et al. [4] retrospectively evaluated the long-term prognosis of intra-arterial therapy (in 408 eyes of 343 retinoblastoma patients) over a 20-year time period, but they did not report on growth outcomes. Friedman et al [5] modeled the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and reported medical outcomes and general health of 470 adult survivors of retinoblastoma with a median follow-up of 42 years. They found that survivors of retinoblastoma were 1.4 times more likely to report any chronic condition, and 7.6 times more likely to have a severe or life-threatening chronic condition when compared with a similarly aged cohort of individuals without a history of retinoblastoma. They do not report on growth parameters during the chemotherapy administration period or the subsequent follow up period.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) survivors currently form the largest group of long-term survivors from childhood cancer, and treatment of ALL with chemotherapy alone during childhood has been associated with final height deficits [22,23]. The mechanism by which chemotherapy exerts its influence on growth is unclear. Several authors [23,24] have hypothesized that treatment induces hypothalamic-pituitary abnormalities ultimately leading to growth hormone (GH) deficiency.

In our study, data were collected retrospectively and we did not investigate GH secretion or pubertal status in our population. In addition, the sample size of bridge patients was too small to draw any significant conclusions and we did not pursue analysis. Their rapid growth during OAC is likely attributed to their younger age, consistent with published growth curves showing that younger infants have higher rates of linear growth [25].

Our secondary group appeared to grow more rapidly than our naïve group during treatment with OAC, but this difference was not found to be statistically significant. Both groups are above the 50th percentile for linear growth. Prior studies on systemic chemotherapy [26] have documented a “catch-up growth” phenomenon in which the cessation of intravenous chemotherapy coincides with resumption of growth and an increase in growth markers above pre-chemotherapy levels. We may hypothesize that additional treatment with OAC does not suppress this period of accelerated growth, in contrast to a previous study [27] in which a third phase of systemic chemotherapy inhibited catch-up growth. Our lack of statistical power may be related to a small sample size.

We also found that in the three-year follow-up period, both naïve and secondary patients were consistently taller than same-age children in the general population, suggesting that OAC does not affect growth whether given as primary treatment or after systemic chemotherapy, in contrast to a recent study [28] in which 26% of pediatric cancer patients (30% with retinoblastoma) treated with only systemic chemotherapy had a height less than the third percentile for that age. However, we did not have the opportunity to serially measure growth during systemic chemotherapy because we abandoned systemic chemotherapy for intraocular retinoblastoma more than 11 years ago (with the exception of bridge patients) [29].

Although a previous study [30] has reported on the prevalence of childhood obesity in pediatric cancer survivors treated with systemic chemotherapy, no such effect was seen in our naïve group at the three-year follow-up period.

The introduction of OAC has resulted in a dramatic increase in ocular retention rate without compromising patient retinoblastoma survival [31], but as with any novel therapy, long-term effects must be carefully monitored. OAC does not appear to affect linear growth during treatment, and furthermore does not appear to inhibit catch-up growth after systemic chemotherapy. OAC is not associated with short stature long-term. Further longitudinal studies are needed to assess final stature in adulthood.

References

  1. 1. Abramson DH (2014) Retinoblastoma: Saving Life with Vision. Annual Review of Medicine 65: 171–184. pmid:24422571
  2. 2. Siebler T, Shalet SM, Robson H (2002) Effects of chemotherapy on bone metabolism and skeletal growth. Horm Res 58 Suppl 1: 80–85.
  3. 3. Nahum MP, Gdal-On M, Kuten A, Herzl G, Horovitz Y, Weyl Ben Arush M (2001) Long-term follow-up of children with retinoblastoma. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 18: 173–179. pmid:11293284
  4. 4. Suzuki S, Yamane T, Mohri M, Kaneko A (2011) Selective ophthalmic arterial injection therapy for intraocular retinoblastoma: the long-term prognosis. Ophthalmology 118: 2081–2087. pmid:21715012
  5. 5. Friedman DN, Chou JF, Oeffinger KC, Kleinerman RA, Ford JS, Sklar CA, et al. (2016) Chronic medical conditions in adult survivors of retinoblastoma: Results of the Retinoblastoma Survivor Study. Cancer 122: 773–781. pmid:26755259
  6. 6. Fan C, Foster BK, Wallace WH, Xian CJ (2011) Pathobiology and prevention of cancer chemotherapy-induced bone growth arrest, bone loss, and osteonecrosis. Curr Mol Med 11: 140–151. pmid:21342129
  7. 7. Schriock EA, Schell MJ, Carter M, Hustu O, Ochs JJ (1991) Abnormal growth patterns and adult short stature in 115 long-term survivors of childhood leukemia. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9: 400–405. pmid:1999710
  8. 8. Katz JA, Chambers B, Everhart C, Marks JF, Buchanan GR (1991) Linear growth in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated without cranial irradiation. J Pediatr 118: 575–578. pmid:2007935
  9. 9. MoËLl C, Garwicz S, Marky I, Mellander L, Karlberg J (1988) Growth in Children Treated for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with and without Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation. Acta Pædiatrica 77: 688–692.
  10. 10. Dickerman JD (2007) The late effects of childhood cancer therapy. Pediatrics 119: 554–568. pmid:17332209
  11. 11. Abramson DH, Shields CL, Munier FL, Chantada GL (2015) Treatment of Retinoblastoma in 2015: Agreement and Disagreement. JAMA Ophthalmol 133: 1341–1347. pmid:26378747
  12. 12. Schaiquevich P, Fabius AW, Francis JH, Chantada GL, Abramson DH (2017) Ocular Pharmacology of Chemotherapy for Retinoblastoma. Retina 37(1): 1–10. pmid:27617542
  13. 13. Fischer C, Petriccione M, Vitolano S, Guarini E, Davis ME, Dunkel IJ (2017) The Effect of Ophthalmic Artery Chemosurgery on Immune Function in Retinoblastoma Patients: A Single Institution Retrospective Analysis. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 39(7): 555–9. pmid:28906322
  14. 14. Dunkel IJ, Shi W, Salvaggio K, Marr BP, Brodie SE, Gobin YP, et al. (2014) Risk factors for severe neutropenia following intra-arterial chemotherapy for intra-ocular retinoblastoma. PLoS One 9(10): e108692. pmid:25303673
  15. 15. Brinkman TM, Merchant TE, Li Z, Brennan R, Wilson M, et al. (2015) Cognitive function and social attainment in adult survivors of retinoblastoma: a report from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study. Cancer 121: 123–131. pmid:25421884
  16. 16. Willard VW, Qaddoumi I, Chen S, Zhang H, Brennan R, et al. (2014) Developmental and adaptive functioning in children with retinoblastoma: a longitudinal investigation. J Clin Oncol 32: 2788–2793. pmid:25024069
  17. 17. van Dijk J, Grootenhuis MA, Imhof SM, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Moll AC, et al. (2009) Coping strategies of retinoblastoma survivors in relation to behavioural problems. Psychooncology 18: 1281–1289. pmid:19222049
  18. 18. van Dijk J, Oostrom KJ, Imhof SM, Moll AC, Schouten-van Meeteren AY, et al. (2009) Behavioural functioning of retinoblastoma survivors. Psychooncology 18: 87–95. pmid:18613302
  19. 19. Weintraub N, Rot I, Shoshani N, Pe'er J, Weintraub M (2011) Participation in daily activities and quality of life in survivors of retinoblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 56: 590–594. pmid:21298744
  20. 20. Desjardins L, Chefchaouni MC, Lumbroso L, Levy C, Asselain B, et al. (2002) Functional results after treatment of retinoblastoma. J aapos 6: 108–111. pmid:11997807
  21. 21. Yu CL, Tucker MA, Abramson DH, Furukawa K, Seddon JM, Stovall M, et al. (2009) Cause-specific mortality in long-term survivors of retinoblastoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(8): 581–91. pmid:19351917
  22. 22. Dickerman JD (2007) The late effects of childhood cancer therapy. Pediatrics 119: 554–568. pmid:17332209
  23. 23. Vandecruys E, Dhooge C, Craen M, Benoit Y, De Schepper J (2013) Longitudinal linear growth and final height is impaired in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors after treatment without cranial irradiation. J Pediatr 163: 268–273. pmid:23351599
  24. 24. Rose SR, Schreiber RE, Kearney NS, Lustig RH, Danish RK, et al. (2004) Hypothalamic dysfunction after chemotherapy. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 17: 55–66. pmid:14960022
  25. 25. Turck D, Michaelsen FK, Shamir R, Braegger C, Campoy C, Colomb V, et al. (2013) World Health Organization 2006 child growth standards and 2007 growth reference charts: A discussion paper by the committee on Nutrition of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 57(2): 258–64. pmid:23880630
  26. 26. Katz JA, Pollock BH, Jacaruso D, Morad A. (1993) Final attained height in patients successfully treated for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Pediatr 123(4): 546–52. pmid:8410505
  27. 27. Crofton PM, Ahmed SF, Wade JC, Elmlinger MW, Ranke MB, Kelnar CJ, Wallace WH. (1999) Effects of a third intensification block of chemotherapy on bone and collagen turnover, insulin-like growth factor I, its binding proteins and short-term growth in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Eur J Cancer 35(6): 960–7. pmid:10533479
  28. 28. Seth R, Singh A, Sandeep S, Sapra S (2017) Late effects of treatment in survivors of childhood cancers: A single-centre experience. Indian J Med Res 146: 216–223. pmid:29265022
  29. 29. Gobin YP, Dunkel IJ, Marr BP, Francis JH, Brodie SE, Abramson DH (2012) Combined, sequential intravenous and intra-arterial chemotherapy (bridge chemotherapy) for young infants with retinoblastoma. PLoS One 7(9):e44322. pmid:23028521
  30. 30. Reilly JJ, Ventham JC, Newell J, Aitchison T, Wallace WH, Gibson BE. (2000) Risk factors for excess weight gain in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24: 1537–41. pmid:11126353
  31. 31. Abramson DH, Shields CL, Jabbour P, Teixeira LF, Fonseca JRF, Marques MCP, et al. (2017) Metastatic deaths in retinoblastoma patients treated with intraarterial chemotherapy (ophthalmic artery chemosurgery) worldwide. Int J Retina Vitreous 3: 40. pmid:29085670